56 minutes ago, stuie said:

 

In whatever business you're in, does your salary fluctuate depending on the financials of the company? Mine doesn't.

 

It actually does.

However that to me is not the main point

I am not suggesting that more money be allocated from money that isn't there - I am suggesting that the AFL allocate more money to a project that may not provide an immediate return as they have always done in the past.

5 hours ago, Stretch Johnson said:

Disingenuous.   Professional women's football hasn't been done before. 

The money will be there soon enough if the league does as well as expected. 

She dismissed his arguments the women should be paid less because the AFL was taking a risk on a start-up competition.

"I suggest when Greater Western Sydney was set up the men weren't paid any less than those from the Western Bulldogs," she said.

"I don't see what's different at the women's league."

"Could you imagine a large resource company investing or developing an asset or new mine and saying we're not going to pay workers the same as we pay at the other mine?"

"It wouldn't happen because you have to invest in any new part of your business. You recognise there is some risk involved and that is how business works."

http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/should-female-afl-players-get-paid-the-same-as-men/7817118

 

2 minutes ago, nutbean said:

It actually does.

However that to me is not the main point

I am not suggesting that more money be allocated from money that isn't there - I am suggesting that the AFL allocate more money to a project that may not provide an immediate return as they have always done in the past.

Saturday night’s exhibition match between Western Bulldogs and Melbourne averaged 746,000 viewers (metro and regional) and peaked at 1.05 million on 7mate.

The match attracted 387,000 viewers in Melbourne.

AFL chief Gil McLachlan admitted the TV figures were “beyond expectations”.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/swoop/there-are-one-million-reasons-the-afl-need-to-pay-their-female-players-more/news-story/2c78c6ebdc1c1f24e09be165418c2b04

 

3 minutes ago, stuie said:

She dismissed his arguments the women should be paid less because the AFL was taking a risk on a start-up competition.

"I suggest when Greater Western Sydney was set up the men weren't paid any less than those from the Western Bulldogs," she said.

"I don't see what's different at the women's league."

"Could you imagine a large resource company investing or developing an asset or new mine and saying we're not going to pay workers the same as we pay at the other mine?"

"It wouldn't happen because you have to invest in any new part of your business. You recognise there is some risk involved and that is how business works."

http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/should-female-afl-players-get-paid-the-same-as-men/7817118

 

Thanks Stuie - my point exactly. 

It smacks of "nickle and diming" to me.

Question one - do we want a womens league and do we believe in its long term future ? If yes Question two - do we have the money to fund it properly ? If yes then three - fund it properly or don't bother with the project.

2 hours ago, stuie said:

Ok, well their employment is as top level footballers. 

Their employment is as top level female footballers and it's important to make that differentiation. In reality they will likely be the 5th/ 6th/ 7th best Aussie rules league in Australia next year and the players will be paid accordingly. When the league is better and has longer seasons the players will be paid more, which is likely to be sooner rather than later.

On face value a minimum wage of $5,000 does seem low (average wage for the 8 game season is approximately $7,500 ($200,000 salary cap/ 27 players)) especially as they are likely to be out of pocket for incidentals (boots, insurance etc.), but I'll reserve judgment on whether it is fair or not until I've had a crack at the math.

I'd equate the Womens league to where Netball was at 5 years ago. Back then the players all worked full time jobs on top of a full time netball season (approx double the length of the AFLW season for similar payments per match). In 5 years time I'd expect the AFLW to at least be on par with where netball is now. 

2 hours ago, stuie said:

"Could you imagine a large resource company investing or developing an asset or new mine and saying we're not going to pay workers the same as we pay at the other mine?"

"It wouldn't happen because you have to invest in any new part of your business. You recognise there is some risk involved and that is how business works."

http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/should-female-afl-players-get-paid-the-same-as-men/7817118

 

No it's not. The quote sounds like it's from an idealistic 2nd year arts student, rather than anyone with a rudimentary understanding of business.

12 minutes ago, Beats said:

Their employment is as top level female footballers and it's important to make that differentiation.

That part of your post says it all about your understanding really.

 

3 minutes ago, Beats said:

No it's not. The quote sounds like it's from an idealistic 2nd year arts student, rather than anyone with a rudimentary understanding of business.

Well it's a quote from someone who headed up corporate affairs for BHP Billiton, so I'd wager she would understand business better than you or I.

 

3 hours ago, stuie said:

"THE AFL Players’ Association will reject the league’s female pay proposal, insisting the $5000 rate for most of its talent is too low."

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/afl-players-association-rejects-female-pay-proposal-for-new-comp/news-story/006b11c2f8ad1869b47b8b16111c5063

 

In country footy many of the players earn more than $5k per season, some much more. No TV, no big sponsors. I suspect $5k is insufficient. The AFL should have confidence in selling a new product and pay accordingly. A midday Saturday & Sunday comp on FTA TV could be a good earner and self funding. The entire womans comp is a bargain compared to the millions poured into GWS. 

4 hours ago, rjay said:

I work for myself 'stuie', which means I work for the people who want to pay for my services. If my service is not up to scratch or I am out of favour then it reflects in what I make.

If you work for a company (not government) then whether you understand it or not the financials of that company have an impact on your salary. If the company is failing for whatever reason then chances are you will get the ultimate pay cut.

So you charge your customers less if they are poor? Very commendable of you.

AND you don't pay employees working on new projects and expansion plans until after the expansion plan has succeeded?

"Hi yeah, we're making a bid for a major contract, I need you to work overtime for the next couple of weeks. Also, you will only get paid for that time if we are the successful bidder."

Business analogies. They pretty much apply to... nothing.

Looks like the AFL is listening http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/afl-closer-to-announcing-a-fair-deal-for-womens-pay-in-aflw-20161109-gslfsl.html  "I think a really fair deal and really rewarding and a deal working closely with players and the AFLPA to ensure a sustainable start to this comp. The girls will be well rewarded, not just for playing but for marketing and ambassadorial roles." 

A fair deal is all that was being asked.  I'm guessing it will be in the $10,000 to $15,000 pp range -  a vast improvement on $5,000 for a 22 week season (preseason and games).

And it is good to see them recognise the importance of a 'sustainable start'.

"WOMEN playing in the NAB AFL Women's League will be paid a minimum $8500 in the first two seasons of the new competition as well as a range of extras relating to travel, gear and insurance."

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-11-10/new-minimum-set-as-womens-pay-deal-is-signed-off

 

Enough to at least be basically respectful, but low enough that the perpetually offended men's privilege club can't get an effective sook going.

It'll do for now.

3 hours ago, stuie said:

"WOMEN playing in the NAB AFL Women's League will be paid a minimum $8500 in the first two seasons of the new competition as well as a range of extras relating to travel, gear and insurance."

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-11-10/new-minimum-set-as-womens-pay-deal-is-signed-off

 

Still a pretty low start.

After the competition blows up in year one, I expect a lot of the athletes will be thrilled to receive a large pay rise for season 2018.

10 minutes ago, Vandenberger With The Lot said:

Still a pretty low start.

After the competition blows up in year one, I expect a lot of the athletes will be thrilled to receive a large pay rise for season 2018.

When you compare it to the new national netball comp or the NSW women's cricket team (which you'd say won't get near the TV numbers or sponsorship dollars of the AFLW) it's still pretty low, and really they should be paying their insurance for them (geez iSelect are the major sponsor?!), but I guess this is an "improvement" and even though the AFLPA went hard about it I can only imagine how much harder they'll go next year with numbers behind them that can't be denied.

Although "Grab her by the [censored]" just got put in charge of the most powerful country in the world, so who knows?!

 

Here's an article that has all the payments broken down to what receive and what they earn an hour. It also mentions that they receive income protection insurance and medials costs provided, it is just private healthcare that isn't included, the fellas have to pay for that themselves as well.

http://www.girlsplayfooty.com/2016/11/breaking-down-new-afl-womens-player-pay.html?m=1

I am so sick of this bloody overzealous equal pay argument cr@p.  It is clearly not a professional league yet - does nine hours 'work' per week, for part of the year really constitute a full time job?

This whole issue has been highjacked by the now super aggressive 'affirmative action' women's movement, which actually puts equality and fairness to one side on an individual level and is hell bent on squaring up the numbers to give the appearance of equality.

Next someone will be saying that the under 18s competition is child slave labour, so we should be paying them award wages.

As a side issue, I'd also actually argue that the AFL men are overpaid and more AFL money should be going into supporting local grass roots footy at all levels (and sexes), but that's another story.

On 8/11/2016 at 5:15 PM, stuie said:

Read this champ.

"It was the largest overall average audience in Melbourne of any game during the 2016 home and away season.

The previous best was the St Kilda-Geelong match in round 14, which drew an average audience of 347,000 viewers, while the Essendon-Richmond Dreamtime at the 'G clash in round 10 nabbed an average of 331,000."

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-09-04/womens-allstars-game-a-ratings-smash

"Over hyped" hey?

 

Already read that thanks buddy and I suspect it is one of the major contributing factors to it being over hyped.  As others have said, it makes just a bit of difference it being the only footy on TV on a week in the middle of the regular season.

Further though, it's pretty easy to flick on the box for a few minutes or a few hours compared to actually attending the game.  Tell me what was the actual attendance at the ground?  I'd say the ground attendance is more indicative of the core support the game is likely to attract in the longer term - and then you could divide that by two once you have two other Melbourne based teams.  Let's not even think about how much further diluted that support would be were it competing with the regular men's AFL season.  In a regular AFL round, I'd see that the womens ratings would be worse than televised VFL (and no commercial station was actually interested in that).

The only real opportunities for regular ratings I can see for the women's game in the short term are in the off season (as the AFL has astutely planned).  Even then the women's game will be competing with cricket, soccer, basketball, netball etc.  Speaking honestly, from a personal perspective 'right now' I have limited interest in watching women's AFL on a regular basis.  My wife who actually played the game 10 years or so ago has hardly expressed a burning passion and joy that the women AFL league is upon us either.  I'd temper these statements with an admiration for the personal attributes displayed by Daisy Pearce and that in time my interest level in the women's game may grow, but I think that is also a little patronising and unrealistic in a way - I also have admiration for Michelle Payne, but I still have almost zero interest in watching horse racing.

I don't mean to be negative or anti women in any of this, but there is also a need to be realistic and not over inflate the results of idiosyncratic, one off events.

You can argue back and forth on this issue for a few more years but there are two sides to it.

Firstly , the womens game is a start up venture-the AFL is helping to grow it.

or,

Equal pay, TV rights ,% share etc.

The first televised game had novelty value, and the future will see that interest level out and the tv figures will give a more accurate guage of its worth.

You could also argue that the payment scheme is so shameful that Gil has brought this down on himself.

There are 2 ways to solve it.

1.Get the AFLPA to cut their stupid(mens) salary and share

2.Charge the punters more.

Remember the AFL stole the mens game first before commercialising it nationally.

It was a competition built on over a hundred years of good will stolen with 4 signatures.

I hope the women fight hard and the million dollar men such as Buddy,Scully,Danger etc get a haircut,retire,get real or quit.

Seems to be lots of money wasted on pointless cover ups, pay offs etc.

I wont pay any more as a consumer.Never.

 

 

 

10 hours ago, Rodney (Balls) Grinter said:

Already read that thanks buddy and I suspect it is one of the major contributing factors to it being over hyped.  As others have said, it makes just a bit of difference it being the only footy on TV on a week in the middle of the regular season.

 

The women's season is scheduled to take place just before the (formerly knows as) NAB cup, so the interest in footy will be reasonably high and it won't be competing with the men's game for TV audiences again, so you'd think it would get reasonable attention.

 

Further though, it's pretty easy to flick on the box for a few minutes or a few hours compared to actually attending the game.  Tell me what was the actual attendance at the ground?  I'd say the ground attendance is more indicative of the core support the game is likely to attract in the longer term - and then you could divide that by two once you have two other Melbourne based teams.  

 

The attendance was over 6,000. A fair bit more than GWS or GC had for their first few seasons despite having bucketloads of cash tipped into them. But the point of looking at the TV audiences is that's where the money comes from. If we're talking about the return on investment then it's all about the TV rights.

 

Let's not even think about how much further diluted that support would be were it competing with the regular men's AFL season.  In a regular AFL round, I'd see that the womens ratings would be worse than televised VFL (and no commercial station was actually interested in that).

 

As above, it's scheduled for just before the preseason competition so they won't be competing for the same audience.

 

The only real opportunities for regular ratings I can see for the women's game in the short term are in the off season (as the AFL has astutely planned).  Even then the women's game will be competing with cricket, soccer, basketball, netball etc.  

 

Even conservative forecasters have said they expect the AFLW to blitz other women's sports for support and TV ratings, ironically the AFLW players will be getting paid FAR FAR less than the brand new netball league players and women's cricket teams, and about the same as WNBL players. I'm unsure of the figures for soccer, but I'm fairly sure they don't have a professional national competition as yet.

 

Speaking honestly, from a personal perspective 'right now' I have limited interest in watching women's AFL on a regular basis.  My wife who actually played the game 10 years or so ago has hardly expressed a burning passion and joy that the women AFL league is upon us either.  I'd temper these statements with an admiration for the personal attributes displayed by Daisy Pearce and that in time my interest level in the women's game may grow, but I think that is also a little patronising and unrealistic in a way - I also have admiration for Michelle Payne, but I still have almost zero interest in watching horse racing.

 

No one says you have to have interest in it. But so far the figures show there is a strong interest and support for it (outside of you and your wife).

 

I don't mean to be negative or anti women in any of this, but there is also a need to be realistic and not over inflate the results of idiosyncratic, one off events.

 

I haven't taken your comments in that way at all. I understand where you're coming from, I just respectfully disagree.

 

See comments inserted into your post for clarity.

Cheers Rod.

 

 

 

 

On 14/11/2016 at 8:47 AM, stuie said:

See comments inserted into your post for clarity.

Cheers Rod.

 

 

 

 

Stuie, I take you comments on board in the reasonable and genuine spirit I think you intend them.  However I still think you are over playing the facts of the commercial proposition.  Below is the AFL's statement on the matter (which I take with a grain of salt):

Lethlean expects it will be a long time before the women's game funds itself, with a broadcast deal to be finalised in the coming weeks. 

The AFL will not make any money from television stations. 

"We've got one sponsor at the moment. We're trying to do broadcast deals now with our partners, which hopefully take shape in the next few weeks," Lethlean said

In the present context, the reality is that the AFL is probably under playing the issue, but I don't doubt that the women's comp is presently a loss maker.  How quickly that may change is anyone's guess, bit until the competition does mature, the AFL does also need to manage it's financial risk.  I think that the ultimate solution is to manage the EBA's for the women's and men's comps as one, as would be standard business practice, but only once the women's comp is actually at the point of maturity where professionalisim is justifyed.

Here are a few more points for a bit of perspective:

1.  In year one, marquee players will be paid $27,000, the next tier of players will receive $12,000 and the remaining listed players will be paid $8,500 for an average of 10.5hrs 'work' for 16 weeks.  (That's pretty good pocket money in my book for a part time commitment of playing a sport they love, that most participants play for free.  Look at it another way the rates are equivelent to $100K - $320K full time professional rate.  I think these wages are more than 'fair' when you consider the average Australian wage.  No not equal with the men's comp, but the women's comp is far from equal to the men's comp on many fronts - YET).

All three tiers will rise in the second year.

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-10/afl-players-association-applauds-new-womens-pay-deal/8013702

2.  Is pretty generous when considered that 'top' AFL field ($150K) and boundary umpires are only paid around $50K per year (i.e. a full 22 round season) and all umpires are also only part time (it should be noted that the AFL supports both male and female umpires at the top level).  These people do a very though job, have a particularly hard development pathway and also put in fitness work outside their principle AFL training commitments;

http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl-considering-employing-at-least-two-fulltime-umpires-for-2017-season/news-story/347b2a2958129e9e5a56c4a9064e1c28

3.  The whole women's AFL comp is immature.  The reasons given why it is only 8 teams and an abbreviated season is over concerns of severely diluting the talent pool at both the state level and national level to a point where the quality would dramatically suffer.  Similar to point 1, the current pay deal is a transition arrangement which is aligned to the maturity of the competition;

4.  Many activists and media commentors are suggesting that the women's comp should be fully professional from day one.  However have they considered that many of the players may not actually want this, as many may prefer to hegde their bets between a sporting career and profession in everyday life.  Again particularly with where the comp is at.

5.  Some of the arguments about 'under payment' of the women's comp suggest that the AFL is 'a wash with money', it needs to be considered that as I understand things, it is the clubs that need to pay players.  Whilst the power clubs could no doubt afford high salaries, lesser off financial clubs like Melbourne and the Bulldogs survive financially somewhat on a knifes edge can not afford to risk big deficits.  The fincial security and good will of the AFL can only be milked so far.

 

Probably the biggest mistake the AFL made was not paying for players boots which in hindsight was stingy and opened up a cheap dig at the AFL.  The intital offer, which was really still pretty generous has been increased to what I would actually regard as overs in most instances, so if the women's lib activist movement or anyone else wants to take their boots off over this issue, as far as I'm concerned, I know a good place they can shove them and it starts with the letter 'A' (nothing more or less).

I think the revised pay agreement is a step in the right direction. I'm still totally baffled by the health insurance side of things but there ya go. Let's see how this first season goes and how it's operated, the best way to ensure the women get a better pay agreement is to get behind it and go to games. The more marketable the games are the more chance they will have of seeing their paycheques increase.

On 11/10/2016 at 10:41 AM, Little Goffy said:

Enough to at least be basically respectful, but low enough that the perpetually offended men's privilege club can't get an effective sook going.

It'll do for now.

Respectfulness has nothing to do with wages. I'm guessing a stripper that dresses as a nurse gets paid more than a nurse. Society respects the nurse.

Your imaginary mens club that wants to keep women's wages down don't get a look in either I'm afraid.

It is purely market forces. If, and I hope it does, the women's football is watched by the masses the dollars will come. Sponsors will be falling over to pay them.

 

 

 

On 11/8/2016 at 5:13 PM, stuie said:

Rubbish comment.

If you work more than one job would you expect to be paid 1/3 of minimum wage for the second one?

Silly.

And comparing the women's version of the AFL to a country league? You're out of touch and clueless.

 

 

Sorry I forgot the country leagues were established and had established sponsorship and supporter bases. You're right it is different to women's football that has none of that.

Your final point is correct.  I'm one of those out of touch and clueless that voted for Brexit and Trump.